$787 billion

According to the New York Times article, "The Stimulus Plan: How to Spend $787 Billion," the $787 billion stimulus plan has listed many opportunities for improving our environment, largely in part by increasing energy efficiency.

The largest portion devoted to energy conservation is a $14 billion tax cut for businesses. The plan promises to "extend production tax credit for wind energy facilities through 2012 and other renewable energy facilities through 2013. Allow renewable facilities to claim investment tax credit instead of production tax credit. Remove cap on investment tax credit for small wind property. Allow renewable energy producers to claim a 30 percent cash grant from the Treasury Department in lieu of the 30 percent investment tax credit." This is an excellent opportunity for businesses to invest in renewable energy and earn a tax incentive to help compensate for the possibility that these types of energy policies actually cost more than in the past.

As a double major in International Relations and Business Administration, I understand that businesses often need to be pressured to make environmental changes that bring a larger cost to their company. If they do not see an increase in their bottom line, then many businesses will not deem the new energy policy necessary. Therefore, the aforementioned tax cut, as well as the "30% investment tax credit for manufacturers of advanced energy property, which may include technology for the production of renewable energy, energy storage, energy conservation, efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration," (totaling $1.6 billion) will help to drive businesses toward clean energy solutions.

I do feel that in order to make a change, businesses need to fully be behind the effort. Without big business supporting environmental change, all of our stuff will continue to be made, distributed, and disposed of in environmentally inefficient ways. However, I fully agree with Matt when he states that "People have to 1) know that these options are out there 2) know why it's important and 3) see and feel a connection with the effort." Currently, the American population is concerned with how the $787 billion stimulus plan will fix the economy. But we need to look at the big picture and understand that investing in the environment will ultimately save our economy as well. Hopefully the $20 billion designated for "green" jobs to make wind turbines, solar panels, and improve energy efficiency in schools and federal buildings will be brought into the public eye.

Economic Distancing = Eco Distancing

It is exciting to see a good portion of 40billion dollars working towards cleaner energy sources, more efficient energy usage and less polluting forms of mass transit. On the other hand the troubling aspect is that it's all being done out of sight or, certainly not "in the spotlight." The short film "The Story of Stuff" talks about economic distancing and that a major problem is that we are so far detached from where all of our stuff comes from we don't see how making it all is hurting our environment. I see this stimulus package as a similar let down for us, it's kind of a "don't worry about kids, we'll take care of it." This again just reiterates what the government already does in regards to environmental issues...expects very little of its people.
Why not create jobs through social/community work? People could be trained to then go out and educate and train Americans on living a more green and sustainable lifestyle. Why was this not on the docket? The benefits of such a program would far extend beyond those of just putting more electric buses on the road, who is gullible enough to think that just because it's there people will use it? People have to 1) know that these options are out there 2) know why it's important and 3) see and feel a connection with the effort.
Global climate change is something that is affecting every citizen on the planet, it is our common ground. Communities of PEOPLE need to take action not communities of GOVERNMENTS, this isn't a highly complicated economic crisis in which we are mere pawns, this is our planet, our lives and our futures and it is us that will make the difference.

This is one of the most difficult questions I could think of answering but, luckily this past year my life was graced with many such interactions with nature. Last April, while traveling in Southern China, my best friend and I took trip to the Tiger Leaping Gorge which hugs the West side of The Jade Dragon Mountains. This gorge is one of the highest in the world and holds a very special place in the hearts of the Chinese; as the name suggests there is a jutting plateau from the west side of the gorge out over part of the river where the tiger leaped across to the other side. The hike begins at the southern opening where the river merges with another but, the quickly rising trail takes you higher and higher above the rushing rapids, too dangerous for kayaking.
We climbed at such a rate that we could note the change in vegetation and soil color every few minutes. Once making it through the treacherous 28 Bends, a test of will and physical ability you discover THE ledge from where the tiger made its infamous leap. Slowly stepping out onto the ledge the stories of hikers who have died here recently quickly enter your mind but, the majesty of the surroundings calls you further. The longest river in China rushing at a steep and immediate 4000m below. The two of us sat in silence, our thoughts connected through the awe we were both feeling, the convergence of mountain, river, man and heavens was undeniable. No one would want to deny such a intertwining of souls.

Gateway to the Valley

What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?
The summer before my Junior Year of high school I went on a two-week trip to Yosemite National Park, where I went on a 3-day backpacking excursion with a group of girl scouts from all around the United States. The park itself is magical, as much of it seems so untouched by human presence, which made me feel like an intruder. The waterfalls were hundreds of feet high and the beauty of Half Dome and El Capitan were simply breathtaking.


But this particular afternoon captured an experience that I will likely only see again on a Discovery Channel episode. One afternoon after setting up our camp for the night, the girls and I decided to go exploring around our site. While walking through the fields, we suddenly caught sight of two male deer running into each other, backing away, and running into each other again. For over ten minutes the antlers clashes and the intensity soared as we anxiously waited. It was not until at least two minutes into the fighting that we noticed a lone female deer standing slightly off to the side. It was such a remarkable experience, to witness the two males fighting over the female. I will never forget this experience for as long as I live. (Although very tiny, the three deer are in the picture to the left... take a look and see if you can find them!)

Part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
Saving nature is something we should absolutely be concerned with. It is so ridiculously important to protect parks such as Yosemite, not only because of the serenity it brings to those who live there, but also to the many species of animals and plants for which it is home. Stephen M Meyer's expresses his fear that there is "virtually no place left on Earth" that fits the definition for wilderness in "The End of the Wild." Others suggest that National Parks provide this specific environment for many species to live in, making it impossible for them to survive if this environment disappears or is ruined by human interaction. However, we need to be concerned with saving nature in all forms. We need to make sure that we are not intruding into areas with "relic species" and doing more than our best to protect what we have left.

Holding Our Hands

Prof. Maniates is right. We have yet to see politicians with enough spine to lay it out like it is and care more about the lives of Americans than their re-election. They are holding our hands, hoping that they are doing enough to keep environmentalists happy and simultaneously not pushing too hard on us in order to not seem like radicals.

One thing the professor does not point out is that politicians and even environmentalists are too comfortable with their way of life to really make the sacrifices and changes that have to be made. But in doing the "simple" things and preaching them and supporting them they are able to ease their own minds and feel like they are doing "something," which, is better than nothing, so we've been told.

This all stems from two things 1) a lack of urgency felt in the general American public about global climate change which then also ties very closely to 2) uncertainty, if a unified voice could express a clear idea it would be easier for people to get on board. People don't know what to believe so they abstain form taking a stance and wait, wait to see for themselves. Thanks to perfectly planned economic distancing, by the time people are able to see the impact of their lives on the planet and make up their minds on this issue it will probably be too late.

President Obama - a chance for political promotion of environmental change?

This week I'd like you to read and comment on this piece, which appeared in the Washington Post on Thanksgiving Day last year. The article was written by Michael Maniates of Allegheny College, one of the authors of the "Confronting Consumption" chapter we read for our last class. What do you make of Professor Maniates' argument?

Yes, yes, yes. We in order to save our planet, we need to do WAY more than the list of everyday changes an American can make in his or her daily life. But is the typical American actually as concerned, eager, and willing to go beyond the "little bit to recycle and conserve" or "simple things... because... that's all they think we'll go for." Tell an American to carry around a portable, reusable coffee container, or Nalgene water bottle, and they may be very willing to do so--as long as it is cute, has some slogan about reusing/recycling, or in some way portrays a status symbol they are trying to portray. But I am currently sitting in the Davenport Lounge right now, and there are at least eight throwaway cups being used that I can see without getting up from my seat.

Professor Maniates professes that environmental elites and political leaders treat us as children by not requiring us bring forth the best in us in regards to enivornmental change. The reason that this is their method, I believe, is that many Americans still do not make the effort to even do the little things that make each days environmental impact less. A recent fad on Facebook is to post 25 random facts, thoughts, goals about yourself, and then tag 25 friends friends who are supposed to do the same. One of my friends recently posted this on his list: "19) I know that recycling is really great, but I hate taking those extra steps in order to recycle. TRASH IT IS!" See today's Washington Post article, 25. We Never Do Random Things. Until We Do. for an interesting insight on this phenom. But what I really want to explain, is that it is easier to tell the population to make these little changes, that more people are willing to do.

I have hopes that President Barack Obama will continue to work to environmental change, which he has already shown to be a key concern in his administration. New Energy for America will not only provide jobs for many Americans, but help us create new sources of power and lead to environmental changes that would not progress under the governance of George Bush. I believe that there are thousands of Americans who place environmental change at the forefront of their concerns, and much of this was demonstrated during Obama's campaign, and hopefully these Americans can fulfill Maniates hopes that our political leaders will now help sponsor and invest in our future by environmental changes. In the meantime, we must continue to impress upon those who do not consider environmental issues important to continue reducing their environmental impact one small, simple step at a time.

Beyond the wall

It is is my opinion that the greatest challenge facing our environment today is the innate human characteristic of stubbornness and our unwillingness to change. As of late, the necessity of the notion that we must be "greening" our lifestyles has become widespread but, then the wall is hit. People are concerned, people want Earth to continue living but, people don't want to do what it takes for that to happen.

It becomes a sociological issue. How do we convince, and change the minds of millions enough to where they are beyond educated on the issues but, are enlightened? Millions who have had the luxury of being American, Western, privileged (environmentally and economically). How do we inspire the need to look beyond one's self and "shrink" the world in terms of conscious thought?

The eco-terrorist inside of me desires a depression. As with the Great Depression people learned to value everything, nothing was wasted, luxuries like gas and electricity were not taken for granite. People of that era still hold this mindset. Losing faith in people and their ability to take charge and and create change on their own freewill has led me to ponder, what if it were forced? What if people had no choice but to live more simply, to conserve water because they could not afford the bills, take colder showers to save electricity, grow their own food because after losing their jobs their savings had dwindled? Can anyone argue that in this context a depression of such nature would be bad? I am not a communist but I am realist.